Where would be without fire? We would probably be sitting in caves with none of the advancements humanity has made in the last several thousand years. We would have no way to prevent freezing to death. Feminists would have us all freeze to death just because they feel that fire oppresses them. This has to be the ultimate example of how feminists are anti-science, anti-technology, anti-civilization, and all around anti-humanity.

Fire is *the* thing that separates humans from other animals. Humans are that animal that eats cooked meat. We are not vegetarians – most people do not thrive on a vegetarian diet – yet we don’t usually eat raw meat. Our *bodies*, our *genes* want the meat to be cooked.

Fire was our first god. Consider the notion of sacrifice – you give something to the gods, and you get it back. You pay a price, but what you get back is *transformed* – it is made *holy*, which is to say *clean*.

What price do you pay? In legend, Prometheus tricked the gods – the gods would get the fat and bones of the sacrifice, and men would get the flesh to eat. Fat and bone marrow get burned by the fire when you cook something – and that’s what the story is about, that’s the origin of religion. The fire takes the fat, and transforms the meat into something better. We give earth and charcoal to the fire, it takes the charcoal and transforms the earth into metal.

Fire is part – and I think the key part – of what actually makes us human.

In a stunning Freudian slip, fembeasts have pinpointed precisely how far behind in evolutionary distance they really are. This is why even MRAs who think ‘feminism’ only started in 1858 in Seneca Falls truly don’t get what the FI is really about, and why it is part of obsolete human hardwiring.

So fire was domesticated by a hominid that, while more intelligent than a chimpanzee, was still a couple of steps behind modern humans and looked visibly more simian. It is hence safe to say that a male Homo Erectus (pictured in the link) is still more advanced than a female Homo Sapiens Sapiens, at least in terms of proclivity towards civilizational progress. Don’t be fooled by a modern female who is articulate, passes exams, and has a 100 IQ (In reality, a woman is exceptionally unsuited for progress.